Can you be an environmentalist AND an alternative energy advocate?

It's getting harder. Tensions are rising between two socio-political objectives.

There may be a growing disconnect between green environmental goals and the headlong drive for alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels. While the two objectives have long been largely congruent, there are new forces pulling in opposite directions.

An environmentalist is a person who advocates for the protection, preservation, and responsible management of the natural environment. Environmentalists are concerned about the impact of human activities on ecosystems, biodiversity, air and water quality, climate change, and other aspects of the planet's health. They work to raise awareness about environmental issues, promote sustainable practices, and push for policies and actions that prioritize the long-term health and balance of the Earth's ecosystems.¹

We are well aware that burning fossil fuels—primarily oil and coal—releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the air. Greenhouse gases trap heat in our atmosphere, contributing to global warming. This is what the environmental advocates are working hard to moderate.

And so, one who is concerned about the environment favors policies that promote alternative power sources, such as wind, solar, and water to heat and cool buildings, to light our homes and offices, to run our factories, and to power all modes of transportation. And herein lies the growing conflict.

Yes, clean energy, but NIMBY

First, there is the NIMBY factor: we’re all for alternative energy, but not in my backyard. According to a new study from the Sabin Center for Climate Change at Columbia University, “In nearly every state, local governments have enacted laws and regulations to block or restrict renewable energy facilities, and/or local opposition has resulted in the delay or cancelation of particular projects.”

Lexington, Massachusetts is an upscale suburb of Boston. It’s liberal. In 2020, 82% of its votes in the Presidential election went to Joe Biden. It’s next to Waltham, where 71% of votes were for Biden. Cambridge (92% for Biden) gets its drinking water from a reservoir that abuts Lexington. But when a developer proposed building a one-megawatt solar project in a forested area in Lexington, opponents quickly emerged. The project would require cutting down approximately 800 trees they complained, and could endanger the drinking water supply for residents of Cambridge if toxins from the panels leach into the groundwater or spread in smoke plumes in the case of a fire. The City of Waltham challenged the project in state court.

Or the battle in Louisiana, the base for many polluting petrochemical plants. The Environmental Protection Agency, as well as numerous climate scientists and lawmakers, see carbon capture as one tool to reduce emissions by stuffing heat-trapping gases underground instead of releasing them into the atmosphere. That would be good for the environment, no?

Not so fast, say some environmental justice advocates who object to carbon capture projects,

especially in a region where petrochemical plants often sit next to Black churches and schools, and high cancer rates have led to the nickname “Cancer Alley.” Some fear carbon capture will perpetuate fossil fuel industries they want to phase out. Others fear the direct local impacts of pipelines and other planned infrastructure.

Wind, though a clean source of energy, also has its drawbacks. Wind turbines are very large machines, and they visually affect the landscape. Wind turbine blades make noise as they turn —so, please, not in my backyard. Birds and bats can be injured or killed if they are hit by turbine blades. These deaths may contribute to declines in the population of species also affected by other human-related impacts.

Right now, residents of beach communities in New Jersey have organized to stop multiple proposals to build wind farms, with turbines the size of skyscrapers, off their coast. Highlighting the conundrum, the leader of one environmental group, Clean Ocean Action, testified at a hearing, on the one hand, "The urgency to stop climate change is paramount," but, on the other hand addressing climate change through ocean "industrialization" using an "inefficient, expensive and largely untested strategy" was not the right path forward. NIMBY

Screen capture from the Atlantic City beach from a visual assessment of a proposed project by Atlantic Shores.

Clean energy comes with a dirty backstory

A second area where clean energy clashes with a clean environment is in the very creation of the goods that could eventually reduce carbon emissions. The manufacture of an electric vehicle is substantially dirtier than that of a gas vehicle. Among the environmental challenges of getting to clean energy:

• Mining and Resource Extraction: The production of electric vehicle batteries as well as solar panels requires the extraction of minerals such as lithium, cobalt, silicon, and nickel. Mining these minerals can lead to habitat destruction, soil and water pollution, and negative impacts on local communities. Manufacturing lithium-ion batteries involves the use of hazardous chemicals and materials, including solvents, electrolytes, and heavy metals. The production process can lead to potential environmental harm if not properly managed.

• Transportation and Supply Chain: The global supply chain for EV and solar components can involve significant transportation, which in turn generates emissions and environmental impacts, including air pollution and carbon emissions.

• Land Use: Expanding production facilities can lead to land use changes, potentially impacting local ecosystems and habitats.

• Battery and solar panel disposal: With the current technology, EVs use thousands of small batteries (think AA) bundled together for their power. At the end of their life—maybe 10 years—the environmentally safe disposal of hundreds of millions of batteries will have to be dealt with, an unknown expense and impact. Solar panels will need to be disassembled and disposed of when they die.

It’s been calculated that over its lifetime, an electric vehicle will more than compensate for its “dirty” beginnings compared to an internal combustion engine. Estimates vary, but that would be after about 21,000 miles for an electric car and 18,000 for a truck is a current rule of thumb. Ordinarily, this would be under two years given the “average” mileage on cars. However, there’s some evidence that, early adapters of EVs at least, drive their cars fewer miles, about 5,300 by one estimate.

This could be due to range anxiety: two-car families buy an EV for use around town while maintaining their gas auto for longer trips where range and charging are a factor. If this continues, the environmental advantage of EVs would hold over the long term, but the breakeven would take longer.²

This is from a 2023 report from British independent testing company Emissions Analytics. It uses British data, which is about average throughout Europe. (BEV=battery electric vehicle).

It may be trite to say, but there is no free lunch. All forms of energy have their upside and disadvantages. I’ve not even touched on nuclear power, which is clean, a known quantity, and powerful. It also comes with a small but real risk of reactor leaks and, as with batteries and solar panels, issues with the disposal of used materials.

What I do foresee is an increasing conflict between environmental priorities and clean energy policies. This is an issue we will have to balance both individually and politically.

1. Full disclosure: This paragraph was created by ChatGPT, in response to my query “What is an environmentalist?” I don’t expect to make a habit of it, but I do want to test out the capabilities of AI. As here, I will cite an AI source should I employ it.

2. Estimates can vary depending on assumptions made about the sources of the electricity used for charging; that is, the mix of fossil fuels and clean fuels.